11 ms·

Alternate Title: Trump Adviser Peter Thiel's Palantir Technologies To Aid ICE in enforcing Country's Immigration Statutes Using Data Analysis & Available Metad

Alternate Title: Trump Adviser Peter Thiel's Palantir Technologies To Aid ICE in enforcing Country's Immigration Statutes Using Data Analysis & Available Metadata

hwillis 10y ago
So... Should Google be reporting the addresses of people who search for drugs? Should Facebook be informing the TSA about people's religion? Do you really want corporations spying on you for the government even more than they currently do?
- ihsw2 10y ago
  Those are loaded questions. Corporations already provide user data when provided a valid court order to do so, they have been doing it for decades.
  - hwillis 10y ago
    I tacitly acknowledged that in my post with "even more". There is a substantial, I would say extreme, difference between submitting to a court order and proactively providing data to the government.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > Should Google be reporting the addresses of people who search for drugs? Should Facebook be informing the TSA about people's religion? This is a false equivalence, as searching for drugs is not actually illegal, nor is believing in a certain faith. A better analogy would be "Should Google be reporting the addresses of people who are distributing child pornography? Should Facebook be informing the TSA of people who are planning to bomb a plane?" In both cases, the answers is yes, and they are almost legally obligated to if they have clear evidence of wrong-doing.
  - valuearb 10y ago
    Yea the reality is should Google report the addresses of people googling for "sexy teens"? Should Facebook inform the TSA of people who watch plane explosion videos? Whatif their profiles indicate they are Muslims? Very very rarely does someone type into their browser that they want to rape a child, or share on Facebook their plans to bomb a plane. Instead the authorities make inferences, inferences that often lead to the harassment, even prosecution, of innocent people.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      I guess you missed the main point, which is "false equivalence". The two examples you're using have absolutely no bearing on this case. This is a technology licensing case. Would you be angry at Google for licensing its search technology to help run background checks on childcare providers? Would you care if Facebook licensed its social graph technology to see if you should be eligible for a drivers' license based on your medical history?
      - valuearb 10y ago
        I don't think you understand "false equivalence". You responded to someone concerned about corporations turning people into the government because of things in their private web histories. Your response was they should, if those people were clearly committing crimes. My response was, it's very rarely clear whether some is committing a crime or not from their web history, and that companies can be easily coerced into sharing information that is just indicative of a possible crime, which can lead to innocent people being harassed or charged. Specifically thousands of crimes a day (if not more) are committed by Facebook users, and some of those users leave traces of those crimes on Facebook. Facebook is heavily incented to help turn in those criminals to show they are good corporate citizens, and to head off extensive regulation and even civil penalties that could be created by grand standing lawmakers. Facebook has little to no incentive to protect my rights. Now my kid posts "I love weed" on their FB profile, and it's caught the massive dragnet of data being turned over to authorities every day from Facebook. Police get a warrant, bust down my door, and arrest my child if they find weed in their room. If my kid had a couple ounces of pot and the cops think I'm a jerk, they may seize my home. http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-house-seizure/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-hous... If they don't find weed but find painkillers in my wife's purse not accompanied by her legal prescription for them, they will arrest her to justify the raid. Or a dozen other bad things could happen, like they could shoot my barking 60 lb dog (who has never bitten anyone in her life), or worse. So no, I don't want web service providers who have access to my personal information sharing that information with law enforcement. The police can do real police work to catch real criminals, most of their time they seem to abuse the constitution to arrest people for victimless crimes, I don't think they need more tools for that.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ihsw2 10y ago
There's nothing wrong with enforcing your country's immigration policies.
- valuearb 10y ago
  There is if you are a county sheriff who doesn't have that authority. And there is something very wrong with US immigration policies.
  - skylan_q 10y ago
    And there is something very wrong with US immigration policies. Yes, they haven't been enforced.
  - norikki 10y ago
    I agree with both points. Police officers do not and should not have the authority to enforce the law, and anything that stops people from going to the United Sates is wrong. So clearly companies are violating our privacy when hired by law enforcement to examine public records in order to catch them and send them back to their own country. I admire your courage in standing up for all Americans, especially the 7.2 Billion Americans (7.5 Billion - 300 million) who happen to just not have citizenship yet.
- kakarot 10y ago
  I believe that depends on whether there's anything wrong with your country's immigration policies.

Alternate Title: Trump Adviser Peter Thiel's Palantir Technologies To Aid ICE in enforcing Country's Immigration Statutes Using Data Analysis & Available Metadata

hwillis 10y ago

So... Should Google be reporting the addresses of people who search for drugs? Should Facebook be informing the TSA about people's religion? Do you really want corporations spying on you for the government even more than they currently do?

ihsw2 10y ago
Those are loaded questions. Corporations already provide user data when provided a valid court order to do so, they have been doing it for decades.
- hwillis 10y ago
  I tacitly acknowledged that in my post with "even more". There is a substantial, I would say extreme, difference between submitting to a court order and proactively providing data to the government.
jimmywanger 10y ago
> Should Google be reporting the addresses of people who search for drugs? Should Facebook be informing the TSA about people's religion? This is a false equivalence, as searching for drugs is not actually illegal, nor is believing in a certain faith. A better analogy would be "Should Google be reporting the addresses of people who are distributing child pornography? Should Facebook be informing the TSA of people who are planning to bomb a plane?" In both cases, the answers is yes, and they are almost legally obligated to if they have clear evidence of wrong-doing.
- valuearb 10y ago
  Yea the reality is should Google report the addresses of people googling for "sexy teens"? Should Facebook inform the TSA of people who watch plane explosion videos? Whatif their profiles indicate they are Muslims? Very very rarely does someone type into their browser that they want to rape a child, or share on Facebook their plans to bomb a plane. Instead the authorities make inferences, inferences that often lead to the harassment, even prosecution, of innocent people.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    I guess you missed the main point, which is "false equivalence". The two examples you're using have absolutely no bearing on this case. This is a technology licensing case. Would you be angry at Google for licensing its search technology to help run background checks on childcare providers? Would you care if Facebook licensed its social graph technology to see if you should be eligible for a drivers' license based on your medical history?
    - valuearb 10y ago
      I don't think you understand "false equivalence". You responded to someone concerned about corporations turning people into the government because of things in their private web histories. Your response was they should, if those people were clearly committing crimes. My response was, it's very rarely clear whether some is committing a crime or not from their web history, and that companies can be easily coerced into sharing information that is just indicative of a possible crime, which can lead to innocent people being harassed or charged. Specifically thousands of crimes a day (if not more) are committed by Facebook users, and some of those users leave traces of those crimes on Facebook. Facebook is heavily incented to help turn in those criminals to show they are good corporate citizens, and to head off extensive regulation and even civil penalties that could be created by grand standing lawmakers. Facebook has little to no incentive to protect my rights. Now my kid posts "I love weed" on their FB profile, and it's caught the massive dragnet of data being turned over to authorities every day from Facebook. Police get a warrant, bust down my door, and arrest my child if they find weed in their room. If my kid had a couple ounces of pot and the cops think I'm a jerk, they may seize my home. http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-house-seizure/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-hous... If they don't find weed but find painkillers in my wife's purse not accompanied by her legal prescription for them, they will arrest her to justify the raid. Or a dozen other bad things could happen, like they could shoot my barking 60 lb dog (who has never bitten anyone in her life), or worse. So no, I don't want web service providers who have access to my personal information sharing that information with law enforcement. The police can do real police work to catch real criminals, most of their time they seem to abuse the constitution to arrest people for victimless crimes, I don't think they need more tools for that.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ihsw2 10y ago

There's nothing wrong with enforcing your country's immigration policies.

valuearb 10y ago
There is if you are a county sheriff who doesn't have that authority. And there is something very wrong with US immigration policies.
- skylan_q 10y ago
  And there is something very wrong with US immigration policies. Yes, they haven't been enforced.
- norikki 10y ago
  I agree with both points. Police officers do not and should not have the authority to enforce the law, and anything that stops people from going to the United Sates is wrong. So clearly companies are violating our privacy when hired by law enforcement to examine public records in order to catch them and send them back to their own country. I admire your courage in standing up for all Americans, especially the 7.2 Billion Americans (7.5 Billion - 300 million) who happen to just not have citizenship yet.
kakarot 10y ago
I believe that depends on whether there's anything wrong with your country's immigration policies.